You are browsing the archive for fake.

The Kelly Clarkson Photoshop Debate Continues

September 8, 2009 in Kelly Clarkson, Photoshop Job by Versus

The Kelly Clarkson Photoshop Debate Continues | kelly clarkson

The Kelly Clarkson Photoshop Debate Continues… this time, Kelly herself has something to say about it. Daily Express UK has the details:

KELLY CLARKSON was stunned by her own appearance on the recent cover of a fitness magazine because the photograph was so heavily airbrushed, she barely recognised herself.

Clarkson has battled weight issues ever since she won talent show American Idol in 2002, and sparked a furore after appearing on the front of Self magazine’s September (09) issue looking suspiciously svelte.

The editor of the publication defended the decision to airbrush Clarkson, insisting they just wanted to show the singer looking her “best”.

Now Clarkson has opened up about the controversy, admitting she was shocked by the pictures – but accepts all photoshoots inevitably involve the airbrush.

She tells Britain’s Heat magazine, “The whole airbrushing thing has gone crazy. I was like, ‘Who is that on the cover of the magazine?’ They were obviously not happy with what I look like. I’m not being mean about myself, but I just found it funny. I think it’s just one of those things that people have got so used to doing that they don’t even think twice about it.”

Keira Knightley’s Airbrushed Chanel Ad

August 20, 2009 in Keira Knightley, Photoshop Job by Versus

Keira Knightleys Airbrushed Chanel Ad  | keira knightley

Here we go again – take stunning Keira Knightley, undress her till… almost topless, then transform her A-cup bust into a nice, yet fake B cup, then place her on the newest Chanel ad. The Daily Mail has the details:

Brushed up nicely: Keira Knightley in the new Chanel advert appears to have a digitally-enhanced bust. And she is certainly looking particularly buxom bearing in mind she has bemoaned her lack of curves in the past. Stripped to the waist her chest is covered only by a pair of braces, with her bust looking noticeably fuller that usual.

Airbrushing expert Chris Bickmore said Miss Knightley’s skin had been smoothed and her chest enlarged.

‘Her face has definitely been retouched, there are no lines or wrinkles at all,’ he said. ’The whites in her eyes have been made a cleaner white and there are no lines on her neck, body or even the back of her hand where there would definitely be some detail. ‘Her breast has had some shading added to it to give it the effect of being rounder and more pert and it has also been increased in size slightly.’

Yesterday Liberal Democrat MP Lynne Featherstone, who has been campaigning against excessive airbrushing in advertisements along with fellow MP Jo Swinson said advertisers should point out where images have been altered. She said:

‘Keira is a beautiful woman and that’s the point. ’If the image has been airbrushed then people need to know so they don’t try and achieve what is totally unrealistic. ’Young girls especially will try and aspire to things which often they can’t achieve and which will leave them feeling bad about themselves. ’Where an image has been altered and retouched, we are simply saying there needs to be a symbol showing what has been done and where.’

The actress attracted controversy in 2004 when she revealed that the publicity posters for her film King Arthur had been digitally altered. While the British posters displayed her natural boyish look, the American ones showed her with a clearly inflated chest.

‘Those things certainly weren’t mine,’ she told a U.S. magazine at the time (see picture below). ’We had an interesting discussion when they said, “We want to make them slightly larger and you’ll get approval’ and I was like, “OK, fine. I honestly don’t give a s***”. ‘She then admitted in 2006: ‘I don’t have any t***,so I can’t show cleavage.’

It’s not just Knightley’s small bust which has attracted attention.

Last year the actress’s mother Sharman Macdonald denied that her daughter had an eating disorder, saying she has simply inherited her naturally skinny physique from her father, 63-year-old actor Will Knightley. She said her daughter has never had to diet but instead followed a special eating plan – high in protein and carbohydrates – to keep weight on. Miss Macdonald, 58, claimed the actress must ‘eat like a horse’ to keep herself at a healthy weight. Last night a spokesman for Chanel refused to say whether or not the star’s figure had been digitally altered saying: ‘We have no comment.’

Real Keira VS Photoshopped Keira *check out the bust* for King Arthur in the U.S.:

Keira Knightleys Airbrushed Chanel Ad  | keira knightley

This makes me pretty angry and I will never-ever understand it.

Kelly Clarkson Was Retouched to Make Her “Look Her Best”

August 12, 2009 in Kelly Clarkson, Photoshop Job by Versus

Kelly Clarkson Was Retouched to Make Her Look Her Best | kelly clarkson

Kelly Clarkson may not have an issue with her weight, but a digitally slimmed-down image of the singer on the cover of Self magazine is causing waves online.

Lucy Danziger, editor-in-chief of the women’s health magazine, is speaking out in defense of “retouching” the 27-year-old singer in order to make her “look her personal best” on the September issue.

“Yes. Of course we do retouching,” Danziger writes in a post on Self.com. “Did we alter her appearance? Only to make her look her personal best.”

Calling Clarkson “the picture of confidence,” Danzinger writes, “I think this photo is the truest we have ever put out there on the newsstand.”

But many readers have expressed disappointment and outrage over the digitally slim Clarkson. “Hey, hi, Self ladies: None this changes or explains the fact that YOU ALTERED THE BONE STRUCTURE OF HER FACE,” write one reader on jezebel.com where the controversy is stewing.

Adds another reader: “Taking out red eye and airbrushing a pimple would be making her look her personal best. You completely changed the way her body looked. Why even bother asking Kelly Clarkson to pose in your magazine if you didn’t think her body fit into your idea of what was best?”

In the Self article, Clarkson defends her figure. “When people talk about my weight, I’m like, ‘You seem to have a problem with it; I don’t. I’m fine!,’ ” Clarkson says. “I’m never trying to lose weight – or gain it,” she added. “I’m just being!”

This is not the first photo flap the singer has been involved with: In January Clarkson wrote on her blog that “they Photoshopped the crap out of me!” on her All I Ever Wanted album cover image. Check her photoshopped album cover HERE!

Source: People Magazine

REALLY? They made her look her best? So “her best” is minus 30 lbs, while she clearly says that she is fine with her weight?!

What do you think about all this?

Hilary Duff Is Mega Photoshopped in the New DKNY Jeans Ads

July 30, 2009 in Hilary Duff, Photoshop Job by Versus

Hilary Duff Is Mega Photoshopped in the New DKNY Jeans Ads | hilary duff

Hilary Duff Is Mega Photoshopped in the New DKNY Jeans Ads…

… and that is NOT an over-statement – unless these pictures were taken in 2005.

Actually, if we take a close look, this is NOT Hilary’s body type at all – check out the second picture on the next page!

A few days ago, Hilary Duff was “too big” for Gossip Girl and now they replaced her figure with the one belonging to a tall & skinny model in these ads – great messages, guys!

Read the rest of this entry →

Britney Spears Gets Super Photoshopped in Candie’s Ads

July 7, 2009 in Britney Spears, Photoshop Job by Versus

Britney Spears Gets Super Photoshopped in Candies Ads | britney spears

Here we go again:

Step 1: Take one healthy-sized, natural, real and pretty Britney;

Step 2: Insert her in the “Photoshop Machine”;

Step 3: Perform a basic “Digital Weight Loss” apply some Liquify, some Plastify and then some more Barbie-fy

…and tadaa!!! A job well done!

Britney Spears Gets Super Photoshopped in Candies Ads | britney spears

How do you all like Britney’s fake figure and plastic skin in the latest Candie’s ads?

You have to see the rest of the ads on the next page!

Read the rest of this entry →